LAW OF EVIDENCE

LAW OF EVIDENCE

Problem No. 1
 ‘A’ is accused of ‘B’s murder by beating him. At the time of incident, there was an exchange of
words between ‘A’ and ‘B’. Is this fact relevant?

Answer
   Sec. 3 of the Evidence Act defines Relevant Facts. One fact is said to be relevant to another,
when the first fact is connected with the second fact in any of the ways referred under the dispute.

Sec. 7 of the Act states that Facts, which are the  occasion, cause or effect, immediate or
otherwise, of relevant facts, or facts in issue, or which constitute the state of things under which
they happened or which afforded an opportunity for their occurence or transaction, are relevant.

One fact must be connected with other facts in a logical way. Whether a fact is relevant or not
should be determined by logical reasoning and common sense. To say that a fact is relevant is to
find whether such fact comes under one or more of the provisions of the Act laid down under Secs.
5 to 55 which talk about Logical Relevancy, Legal Relevancy and Admissibility.

In the above cited case, A is accused of B’s murder. It is relevant to examine the motive behind A’s
act which

can be established only with the facts which lead to commitment of murder. Thus, the exchange of
words between A and B at the time of incident is quite relevant to the case.

Problem No. 2
          Ramu is tried for the murder of his wife by poison. In this case, evidence is lead as to the
fact that prior to the death of his wife, Ramu procured poison similar to that which was
administered to his wife. Is it relevant?

Answer
          Yes. Sec. 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 states that facts constituting a motive or
preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact , is relevant.

The Act further states that the conduct of any party, or of any agent to any party, to any suit or
proceeding in reference to such suit or proceeding or in   proceeding in reference to such suit or
proceeding or in   reference to any fact in issue therein or relevant thereto and the conduct of any
person, an offence against  whom the subject of any proceeding, is relevant, if such conduct
influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact and whether it was previous or
subsequent thereto.

          In the above case, Ramu’s act of procuring poison similar to that which was administered to
his wife who

is dead, suggests that his conduct prior to the commitment of murder was questionable and
relevant  to the issue. Hence, the evidence led against Ramu is relevant.

Problem No. 3
           ‘A’ is tried for having committed a crime at Mumbai on a particular day. He leads
evidence to prove the fact that on that day he was at London. Is it relevant?
Answer
Yes. As per Sec. 11, Clause (1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, facts not otherwise relevant are
relevant, if they are inconsistent with any fact in issue or relevant fact.

This Section enables an accused to plead Alibi  i.e., absence at the time of commission of offence.
The fact that the accused was far away from the scene of the crime at the time of commission of
the offence is inconsistent with the fact in issue viz., a crime was committed. But under the Section,
it is relevant to prove that the accused could not have committed the offence by virtue of the fact
that when the offence was committed,he was at a place which would render it highly improbable if
not impossible that he committed it .

Keeping in view the provisions of the above section, ‘a’ leading evidence to prove that he was at
london while the crime was committed at mumbai, is quite relevant.

Problem No. 4
          A sold a horse to B. When B asked A about the soundness of the horse, A said, “Go and
ask C; C knows all about it”, State the nature of the statement given by C and how far is it
admissible in evidence.

Answer
          An admission is a statement either oral or documentary suggesting any iference as to any
fact in

issue or relevant fact made by certain persons under certain circumstances as provided u/s 17 of
the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

          The following are the ingredients of Admission:

i.    Admission should be made voluntary, in order to have the effect of substantive evidence

ii.  An admission is an oral or documentary statement eg., letters, affidavits, deeds, receipts, plaints
etc. Admission can also be implied as in the case of post dated cheques

iii. it suggests some inference

iv. Such inference is regarding any fact in issue or relevant fact

          The illustration given under in the Act under this section is the same as the above case.
Going by the same, we may state that the statement given by C is an admission as it satisfies all
the above requirements specified under this section.

Problem No. 5
          ‘A’ was called to police station for interrogation. During interrogation ‘A’ complained of
severe stomach pain. He was taken to hospital in a police van, while in hospital, he confessed
to a doctor that  he committed robbery. Is the confession admissible?

Answer
          Sec 26 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with confession made by the accused in police
custody.
          It says that no confession made by any person while he is in custody of police officer shall be
proved as against such persons.

          The period of police custody commences from the time the accused comes into the hands of
police. In the custody, if he is not permitted to act as per his free will, then it is a police custody,

          This Section further states that if an accused is sent for medical examination to a doctor
while he is in police custody, then confession made to the doctor while he is in police custody, then
confession made to the doctor is invalid.

          Therefore, it bears out that ‘A’s confession to the doctor regarding his commitment of
robbery, is not admissible.      

Problem No. 6
          ‘A’ is accused of theft. During the police custody he indicated the place where the stolen
goods were hidden and the police recovered those goods. Can this information be used
against ‘A’?

Answer
          Yes. Confession made to a police officer is generally invalid but sometimes confession to a
police officer, under police custody is relevant.

          Sec. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act says that if any discovery is made in furtherance of
deposition of any fact or in furtherance from an accused in the custody of a police officer, such
deposition or information is relevant to the fact thereby discovered.

          It may not be confession of the crime one committed but a confession as to the fact of
discovery. For eg., if a person informs about the place where he For eg., if a person informs about
the place where he had hidden the stolen articles and if the same is discovered in consequence of
such information, the confession leading to the discovery of articles alone is valid and not the
commission of the act.

          This type of confession is necessarily recognized as relevant because it helps in

investigation.

          Keeping in view the provisions of this section, it may be concluded that the confession of the
information as to the place the articles were hidden though relevant, cannot be used against ‘A’
until further evidence as to his commission of theft is lead.

Problem No. 7
           ‘A’ is accused of murder of ‘C’. During trial ‘A’ confesses , I and ‘B’ murdered ‘C’. Can this
confession be considered against ‘B’?

Answer
          Sec. 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with the exception to the rule that a
confession cannot bind any person other than the maker of it.

          When two or more persons are tried jointly for the same offence, one of them makes a
confession which affects himself and the others, the Court may take it into consideration not only
against the person who confessed but also against the others.

          But in the instant case, A alone is tried for the offence. The confession of A implicating B
cannot be considered by the Court, even though there may be evidence that B also participated in
the crime. The reason is that B is not jointly tried with A. 

Problem No. 8
    ‘A’ wants to prove a document which is destroyed by fire. Can he produce photocopy of that
document to prove it?

Answer
          Sec. 63 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 states that Secondary Evidence is usually given as
evidence in the absence of better evidence viz., primary evidence.

          A photocopy of an original document is secondary

evidence as to the contents of the original document.

          Sec. 64 states that Secondary evidence may be given of the existence or contents of a
document when the original has been destroyed or lost, or when the party offering evidence of its
contents cannot produce it in reasonable time.

          Guided by the above provisions of Sec. 64, ‘A’ can produce a photocopy of the document
destroyed by fire to prove its contents.

Problem No. 9
A gives B a receipt for money paid by B. Oral evidence is offered of the payment. Is the
evidence admissible?

Answer
Generally, both oral and documentary evidences are produced to prove a case.

The general rule is that when there is a document to prove a matter, then oral evidence should not
be produced, but only such documentary evidence should be produced.

However, Sec. 91 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that primary documentary evidence is
required only for the terms of a contract, grant or other disposition of property reduced in the form
of document. For proving other statements of fact in any document, oral evidence can be adduced.

A gives B a receipt for money paid by B. Oral evidence is offered for the payment. This oral
evidence is admissible.

Problem No. 10
 ‘A’ is charged with travelling in a railway without a ticket. ‘A’ denies the charge. On whom the
burden of proof lies?

Answer
The ‘burden of proof’ means the obligation to prove a fact. When a person is bound to prove the
existence of any fact, then the burden of proof lies on that person. This is the legal burden or
burden on pleadings, as defined u/s 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Thus, if any person desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent
on the existence to facts which he asserts, he must prove that such facts exist.
Sec. 106 of the Act provides that any fact when it is specially within the knowledge of any person,
then the burden of proving that fact is upon him.

          Since in the above case, A is charged with travelling in a railway without a ticket, it is A who
needs to prove that he is possession of a ticket to travel. The fact as to the possession of a ticket
on the part of A is best known to him and therefore the burden of proving the same is also on him
alone.

Problem No. 11
          ‘A’ has declared the value of goods as Rs. 500/- at the time of consignment. On loss of
goods, he is claiming the value of goods much more than Rs. 500/-. Can he be allowed to take
this stand?

Answer
         Sec. 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 defines Estoppel as when one person has by his
act, declaration or omission intentionally caused another person to believe a thing to be true and
act upon such belief, then the former is not allowed to deny the truth of such a thing in a suit
between himself and such other person.

         In the instant case, A has declared the value of the consignment as Rs. 500/- which the other
party has believed to be true and accordingly might have charged for the transport or for whatever
reason the same was accepted by him.

          Now, as the goods were damaged and the issue of making good the loss has arisen, A
claims that the value of the consignment was much more than the value.

Problem No. 12
‘A’ a client says to ‘B’ an attorney “I have committed murder of ‘C’ and i wish you to defend
me”. Can this communication be disclosed by an attorney?

Answer
          Yes. As per Sec.126 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, a Barrister, Pleader, Advocate or
Attorney cannot be compelled or permitted without the express consent of his client to disclose the
following matters:

i.    any communication made by his client to him.

ii.   any advice given by the Advocate to his client.

iii. the contents of a document about which he has got knowledge.

          Thus, communication, advice, knowledge with regard to document must be in the course of
his employment and they are deemed to be privileged communication, This privilege is the
privilege of the client and he can prevent the Advocate from giving evidence.

In the instant case, A’s communication to B, an Advocate, of his commitment of murder comes
under privileged communication and hence is protected from disclosure.

Problem No. 13
A prosecution witness turned hostile during examination in chief. The public prosecutor wants
to cross examine him. Can he do so?
Answer
Sec. 154 of the Indian Evidence Act states that a hostile witness is a witness who changes sides
and gives evidence against the party calling him. Generally, the witness called by the Police give
evidence in favour of the accused as against the prosecution. The witness who is won over by the
opposite party are called Hostile witness.

When a witness turns a “hostile witness”, leading questions are allowed even in the chief
examination and in the re examination to extract the truth. Questions as to his previous statements
in writing may also be asked.

The Court must declare that he is a hostile witness. The statement of the hostile witness is not an
evidence. It is totally irrelevant and the Court will not consider it.

However, it is the discretion of the Court.  In the cross examination of hostile witness, questions
regarding the impeachment of the credit of the witness can be asked.

The Court may also permit a party to cross examine his own witness if he turns hostile.

Problem No. 14
 ‘A’ has obtained a decree for the purchase of land against ‘B’. B’s son ‘C’ has murdered ‘A’ in
consequence. Is the existence of decree relevant?

Answer
Sec. 43 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides that Judgments, Orders or Decrees other than
those mentioned in Secs. 40, 41 and 42, are irrelevant, unless the existence of such judgment,
order or decree is a fact in issue, or is relevant, under some other provision of this Act.

         Generally, judgments not inter parties and judgments in personam cannot be produced as
evidence in a subsequent case.

          However, they are sometimes relevant and admissible to prove some limited purposes. For
eg., the existence of judgment becomes a relevant fact or a fact in issue in a subsequent case.

In the instant case, ‘A’ has obtained a decree for purchase of land against ‘B’. ‘C’ who is ‘B’s son
has murdered ‘A’ in consequence thereof. The existence of the decree in favour of ‘A’ is a relevant
fact in the subsequent case to prove the motive of ‘A’s murder by ‘C’.

  šProblemNo. 15
          ‘A’ is tried for murder. During the trial, evidence of bad character is produced by the
prosecution against the accused. State the admissibility and appreciability of bad character
evidence.

Answer
          Secs. 53 & 54 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 talks about character of the accused in
criminal cases.

            The good character of an accused is always relevant and admissible in criminal cases but
the bad character of the accused is not considered. However, there is an exception in that when
the fact in issue is the bad character of the offender, then the character of the person is
considered. A previous conviction of the accused is an evidence of his bad character.
          The bad character of a person is relevant but not admissible. Only to disprove the good
character of the offender, evidence of bad character is allowed.

Further, the Character evidence is a weak evidence.

aaradhyalaw.blogspot.in